The Art of Genuine Criticism: Writing Without Base Motives Or Purposes

The Critical Way of Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold was one of the kindest writers in the history of cultural or literary criticism. He had to be ironic in writing -- when he couldn't be kind to people he wanted to criticize. (And he had a right to criticize others because he was a writer and a critic of culture!) It was a very basic idea from Matthew Arnold about what is necessary for a responsible and sensitive critic -- using irony -- in order to be kind-hearted enough, or to be a basically kind writer -- when he wants to criticize others! To many truly unkind (or perhaps uncomprehending) -- and also, yes!, invisible (but always listening, "WATCHNG", FOREVER EAVESDROPPING and often talking!) NOBODIES (NAMELY, BUSYBODIES AND MEDDLERS -- YES!, LEADING "people" up there!), this approach to critical writing was not so obviously understood nor acceptable NOR WELCOMED. They are just looking for self-approving and self-commending REFERENCES, CITATION, COMMENDATION and even collaboration (or cooperation) and even subordination! -- whenever they read what others are saying about them! But are they themselves not calculative and calculating? --and have they not already calculated their chances of getting what they desire or want (yes, so that they can be cocky and prickly and pesty enough to ask, always: What can I get out of READING your writing (regardless of its high quality or standard or value!)? Nothing is free, they say. If it is not for money, then why does a critic -- or any writer at all -- want to use irony (and other forms of related literary techniques) in his criticism? Irony, yes! -- and also, especially, sarcasm (the biting type) -- can be so hurting, humiliating, and totally dismissive of any man or woman (as a victim of such sarcasm or ironic remarks or criticism) that, when unthinkingly or irresponsibly used, especially, publicly -- in political criticism by writers, or in politically-motivated speeches by political leaders and public figures, it can utterly and devastatingly destroy your spirit, self-importance, self-confidence, self-belief and morale. And why does anyone want to criticize anything and anyone at all -- in the first place? Surely, a kind-hearted and kind soul should always flatter, praise, commend and say good things that would make his readers feel happy, pleased, and pleasured (especially with, or by, himself -- no?) -- yes, always feeling expectantly contented and comfortable about everything and anything?

Kindness is not what money -- or reputation or position or title or even power -- can buy! It comes from a critic WITH A KIND HEART (and, probably too, a gentle soul) who has to be "unkind" (to those who are themselves not KIND!) in order to criticize indirectly -- and hence, hopefully inoffensively! Do you really prefer DIRECT (MEANING: BRUTAL AND FULL-FRONTAL, EVEN ANNIHILATING) CRITICISM? DON'T YOU REALIZE BY NOW THAT IT is not only not artistic but is also not the way to save "the face" of those WHO DON'T EVER WANT TO BE CRITICIZED AT ALL IN ANY WAY? I mean, that form of MOLLY-CODDLING, SLIM-WRISTED, PANSY-WAISTED AND SISSY-LOOKING "criticism" (!) -- YES!, criticism that uses NO irony (and no biting sarcasm) AT ALL --is, well, what you call endearing (meaning: "genuine" ) criticism? -- by any credible standards? (of the kindest kind?).

Kindness -- and not being angry under silly and stupid or simply irrational or unjustified provocation -- are related to each other. Those who are kind tend not to be so easily or quickly or unthinkingly aroused or provoked, into making violent or just simply angry responses -- especially when such provocation or arousal is obviously, calculatingly and calculatively -- yes, and hence, deliberately intended and premeditated! If there is something suspicious or even slightly mysterious about such external provocation, a kind person (especially one with an artistic soul!) is even more unwilling to react (especially violently) -- at least not at the beginning, or even, and sometimes, not at all! If he feels justified (based on his reasoning power and sense of justice) not to be so emotionally entangled, involved or enslaved (or, thus, imprisoned -- by his very own defects or weaknesses!), then he should indeed NOT -- OR, AT LEAST, TRY NOT TO ALLOW HIMSELF TO -- BE SO!

"Slow to anger" -- isn't that some wise counsel or advice from that great spiritual leader, Jesus, who had given his believers and followers not only this important gem of moral and spiritual (or religious) wisdom but also much -- yes, way too much indeed (with the benefit of historical hindsight) of himself -- of his body, soul, mind and heart? But there are, obviously (from observation and experience) and, in addition, with one's common sense and knowledge (gained from reading -- especially HISTORY), so many genuine and true and authentic Christians in this world nowadays -- especially in this postmodern world of capitalism, mass consumerism, mass culture, commercialization, commercialism and -- goodness! gracious! -- surveillance technologies [and their related (human) forces of change: agents, commisars, smooth (technical) operators, and those VITAL and INDISPENSABLE -- yes!, prying and damned proud -- orbiting (heavenly!) communications satellites!]!

If only those invisible NOBODIES (yes, I mean: BUSYBODIES and MEDDLERS) -- ALWAYS OR FOREVER (!) listening, talking, "WATCHING" and EAVESDROPPING -- NAMELESS (NO?) LEADING people "up there" and THOSE UNNAMED AND HOPELESS FIGURES "down below" -- don't react so easily and so quickly OR SO UNTHINKINGLY, or not at all (IN SUCH PROHIBITIVE AND FORBIDDING AND PROVOCATIVE WAYS) -- when it seems so "natural" to do so!

Well, why must we always REACT? Sometimes, for reasons based on your feelings, and due to feelings based on your thoughts (especially rational ones), you simply don't have to respond! LIKE A MAN WHO KNOWS HIMSELF! (AND ALWAYS NOT WANTING TO BE OTHERWISE!)

OTHERS ("people" up there and down below) could not stop reacting -- even at this very moment! [Delayed reaction? Cunning? Playing with words and PHRASES AND SENTENCES -- INCOMPLETE OR OTHERWISE -- and CONCEPTS (OFTEN DISTORTED, TWISTED, CORRUPTED, TAINTED AND MISGUIDED!). Oh, look up the dictionary, please! [How can a non-reaction be a reaction? "A is A" -- my little brother(s) and sister(s)!]

That is all.